Is a Fetus a Person?

The debate over whether abortion should be considered as murder often focuses on the question of whether the fetus is a person or not.
Here the issue of culture and religion comes in.
But what does it take to identify a fetus as a person? There are thinkers today with the belief that a fetus can be called a human being, but should not be called a person because it takes more to be a person than just having genetic material.

Philosopher Mary Ann Warren argues that in order to be considered a person, a being should have the following characteristics:

1. A developed capacity for reasoning.
2. Self awareness
3.Consciousness and ability to feel pain
4. Self motivated activity
5. Capacity to comminicate messages of an indefinite variety of types.

It would seem as if even new born babies may not be considered as persons according to the aforementioned school of thought.

No doubt infanticide has always got widespread condemnation, but abortion has always been a controversial issue.
So, what do you think? Is a fetus a person?

Oct 10 2012:
This question and debate could go on and on, depending on what a person's particular perceptions and religious beliefs are. Abortion was legalized to facilitate more safety for women and young girls who are pregnant, many times without their consent. Whether one believes that the developing fetus is a person or not, we KNOW that the woman or young girl carrying the fetus IS indeed a person who has rights regarding how her body will be used.

Thankfully, I have never had to make the choices involved with considering abortion, nor have any of the men who have commented on this thread. I have, however, interacted with many very young girls as I volunteered in the shelter. It is not an easy decision to make, nor is it made any easier with the contradictory, hypocritical "advice" of religiously oriented people in the girls life. It is not unusual for the "christian" father of the pregnant girl to also be the father of the developing fetus, and as a "good christian" he forces the young girl to carry the pregnancy to term because he follows his churches teachings, which are against abortion. All circumstances need to be evaluated, and the girl/woman who carries the developing fetus has a choice.

Abortion has been a practice since the beginning of humankind. It has been done with herbal remedies, sticks, wires, various tools, implements, proceedures often practiced in the back alley by someone who doesn't know what he is doing, and using unsterile instruments...women and young girls performed their own abortions. Many women and girls were severely maimed and died from these practices that were not safe. That is why it was legalized....for the protection and safety of the woman/girl who WE KNOW is a person.....a person who has rights regarding how her body will be used.

Abortion is not ever going away, so those who want to continue to dominate, control and oppress women may as well get used to it, rather than continuing this fruitless argument.

Oct 10 2012:
Great post Colleen but I did want to point out a little detail. The question is about whether or not a fetus is a person. That has brought out the anti-abortionists you are correct. But you seemed to go from A to Z without so much as a wave :)

Oct 10 2012:
Oh Mr. Kellner, I have posted it so often in this discussion it is wearisome. In response to Mr Grudzinski, Mr. Long, Ms. Gu, Ms. Lover, Mr. Ryan...

No a fetus is not a person. I go into some detail with Ms. Gu on the history, philosophical underpinnings and legal definition of person and why a fetus is not a person. I discuss how in the US a person has rights under the constitution and how children and fetuses (feti?) have no rights and why. How the law in the US defines a person what it is what it is not and what it means.

In the US person has a legal definition and the common definition does not apply.

"Is a Fetus a Person?The debate over whether abortion should be considered as murder often focuses on the question of whether the fetus is a person or not".

I do not know for sure Linda. You have provided adequate substantiated information to show that a developing fetus is not considered a person by law. What I DO know, is the woman or young girl carrying the fetus in her body IS a person with rights.

Oct 10 2012:
Woo Hoo! I do not know either. I really do not care. The only thing that actually affects my rights and the rights of every other woman is the law so I have to follow that definition. I also know that the woman can make decisions and has rights so I will defend that no mater what a fetus is or what anyone tries to tell me it is. I understand all potential definitions and believe none of them (I mean take it as my own). And have to follow the one defined by law.

Oct 10 2012:
Linda,
I also defend the rights of women, and I am aware of the laws and definitions. That's why I said in my first comment..."This question and debate could go on and on, depending on what a person's particular perceptions and religious beliefs are....Abortion is not ever going away, so those who want to continue to dominate, control and oppress women may as well get used to it, rather than continuing this fruitless argument".

Abortion is going to be a continuing practice, as it has been since the beginning of humankind, whether or not it is legal. I prefer to see it a practice that is safe. No one has the right to dictate to another human being how her body will be used.

Oct 12 2012:
My dear Colleen(I wish I could reply to you right under your reply, but your reply is the third one, so I couldn't) I'm glad that you respond to my comment below except for one thing that you might not have read my whole comments there. I thought you did right after I received an email from TED--as you always did. It's also a bit tiresome to explain what I am trying to say especially to Ms(or Mrs).Taylor. "Do we continue to abuse her rights by demanding that she carry a pregnancy to full term?" Why do we do that? I am not in the position of arguing 'veto' to abortion laws. My quote:"For that 8yrs young girl--as you say, who “lacks the capability to understand it”, adults have to help her make an appropriate decision, sometimes by legal force" implies we shouldn't prohibit having abortions especially to this child. Please, my friend, if you pay more attention to my comments there you wouldn't misunderstand.
Here, in Korea, lots of women including children have been being raped by some devils as well. The youngest victim I've heard was 6yrs old. I cried when I heard a news. However often it may be, it is ‘extreme’, or should I use other word, ‘shocking’. Some people might not show any emotional support or sympathy to those raped victims, but to me, it is humiliating to the victims and indeed shocking—whether you agree with this part or not. One thing I agree with you is that children have rights. I think someone doesn't get what kind of right I'm talking about here. Children deserve to be respected and to be allowed to maintain their lives just like adults as they are all human beings with dignity. Just like your comment, neither do I care about whether women use their bodies whatever they want. Whether tattooing on her body, getting her hair cut, having sexual relationships with her boyfriend...
(Running out of characters....:) )

Oct 12 2012:
Hi Elizabeth,
I read all of your comments before I responded, which I usually do to get a feel for where you are coming from with comments.

I think you are getting my comments mixed up with Linda's...in your comment above. the statement..."lacks the capability to understand...." for example, is Linda's, not mine. So, I do not think I misunderstand you.

I did apparently misunderstand your use of the word "extreme", and now understand that you meant "shocking"....thanks for clarifying, and I agree. I also agree that all human beings have rights.

Oct 12 2012:
Oh, don't get me wrong, Colleen, btw :) I have no intention to mix up your comment with Ms(or Mrs) Taylor's.
That quote part here
"For that 8yrs young girl--as you say, who “lacks the capability to understand it”, adults have to help her make an appropriate decision, sometimes by legal force."
From "For" to "force" is from my comment and the sub-quote(so to speak) is from Ms(or Mrs)Taylor's. In previous comment to Ms(or Mrs)Taylor's, I mentioned "as you say" to her to contain her quote by using this "" by using quotation marks.
My response to your quote was: "Do we continue to abuse her rights by demanding that she carry a pregnancy to full term?" Why do we do that? I am not in the position of arguing 'veto' to abortion laws.

My reply there shows it.
You know, just so we’re clear. :) no worries.

Oct 12 2012:
Elizabeth,
I did not perceive you to mix comments up intentionally. It looked like you were crediting me with something Linda said. It becomes confusing sometimes when we use quotes and sub-quotes, etc. Best to keep communications as clear and simple as possible. You advised me to pay more attention to your comments, which I think I do.
Just so we're clear...no worries:>)

Oct 12 2012:
But it is my concern when people treat fetuses as to having abortions some kind of part of their hairs with no respect. It’s killing a live life. She can feel its heart beat when her fetus is growing in her belly. Government shouldn’t take away women’s rights to choose, but should we really close our eyes in front of those little lives? Why not giving it a thought? Fetuses aren’t enemies of human rights. And when this sentence makes conflicts between women’s rights and fetuses rights, usually the latter is weak; therefore, if someone says like, “shouldn’t we consider their lives also?” SOME people with the former part overreact as if it’s a black and white issue. And it goes like, “How dare you to ask governments to deprive women’s rights to do whatever they want even if that means they could kill their fetuses whenever they want? You’re asking them to deprive human rights.” Then, again, it takes too much of a time to explain what he feels about this issue and corrects their misconception about his remarks just like me. Why not encourage women to use contraception instead of having abortions in the first place? And again, by ‘extreme’ and ‘raped’ I mean, also indicating this case. Quite often raped kids and women aren’t able to (or fail to) use birth control drugs inevitably. If you still say that we shouldn’t force women to carry their pregnancy against their free will to me, then it all goes endless repetitive arguments. That’s why I mentioned I HATE DIVISIVE WAY OF DEALING WITH this issue.
Are some people that selfish to give it a concern about value of a life? Are all our hopes ultimately dependent on ‘new technologies’ that would eventually solve this dilemma: While respecting women’s rights to decide to do, we can save fetuses via transplant or other methods?
(Again, cont: )

Oct 12 2012:
In my experience Elizabeth, regardless of a person's beliefs about what a fetus is, or is not, I have never seen a person take the question of abortion lightly. People considering abortion generally give it a great deal of thought and consider all relevant information. There is generally counceling services offered in women's health clinics, shelters, family centers and any other organization that might deal with women and young girls facing the decision.

I agree with you that many people perceive the issue as black and white, and fail to understand that there are many different factors considered when facing the challenging decision. That is why I am in favor of women having the right of choice, which the law protects and supports.

I agree that encouraging women to use contraception is a better choice, which is offered in women's clinics, family centers, medical facilities, etc., along with education. You are right...many women and young kids are not using birth control because they do not anticipate being raped.

I do not believe we should "force" women to carry a pregnancy to term...I believe that women have a choice, and that is what the law provides. The issue does not have to be divisive , and the only thing that makes it so, is people trying to impose THEIR beliefs on women. Women have the right to choose how their body will be used, and many women will choose abortion whether it is legal or not. I prefer to have the proceedure done in safe environments, with medical professionals, rather than in the many unsafe ways it was done in the past.

Oct 12 2012:
"The issue does not have to be divisive, and the only thing that makes it so, is people trying to impose THEIR beliefs on women." yeah, Colleen, especially when some people impose their cultural or religious or political beliefs on women without an effort to convince them with reasonable explanations. That's why we should also value reasons in some way. On the contrary, when others raise a question to women such as "Isn't it also important to consider fetuses' lives to be worthy of living?", the answers at least shouldn't just be defensive. Because asking women to think about Albert Schweitzer's notion of ‘Reverence for life’ is not imposing some beliefs on them. Btw, it just reminds me of your old comments when we were having amusing conversation about whether personality matters(remember? lol ), “many adults do not know themselves well, and are often acting/reacting with a "knee jerk" reaction (are you familier with that term?) based on past experiences”, “The more information we are open to, the more possibilities we have to learn and grow. If we are open minded/open hearted, curious, and genuinely exploring the life experience, we may be taking in new information all the time, and providing ourselves with more possibilities.” I believe your old quotes are relevant to this issue and debate going on here as well. Just like you and I agree with the idea that ‘black and white’ way of views are not fruitful, we, quite most people are getting more defensive toward opposition part. Some people are extremely opposite, and in that case, they usually don’t make any sense. Even if we are granted rights to have abortions whenever we want, we shouldn’t stop thinking—by thinking I mean, using our reasons for pursuing “truth” or should I say, justice?(doesn’t need to be that profound..). Fetuses aren’t defined as persons, but they are alive with beating heart and little body in their moms’ bellies. (oops, seems like it'd be long replies again lol)

Oct 12 2012:
Even for women who choose to have abortions, it would be a quite important decision which needs to be made very carefully—including receiving counseling or taking wise experts’ advice, etc. Why should they be careful? Because even though they have quite reasonable grounds on having abortions, the fact that this is the least worst options she has now, and the fact that still, there’s no perfect way that can save both mom and fetus while not making this inevitable choice make them uneasy or even guilty(not all people). Respecting the idea of reverence for life is not some personal belief, I think. It is part of philosophy which people should take account of when they make this kind of decisions. Merely justifying themselves is not the answer for both parties in this issue. “many women will choose abortion whether it is legal or not. I prefer to have the proceedure done in safe environments, with medical professionals, rather than in the many unsafe ways it was done in the past.” Yeah, this part is the one thing I very agree with for now. Besides, it is the main reason why I think a government shouldn’t prohibit abortions. Considering reality and practicality are also very crucial, particularly in politics. But when those are the only things prevailing among people, and provided that people don’t try to give it a bit of a thought of what‘s moral, what should be the priority and what we should pursue, it becomes much more harder to make productive atmosphere in a debate. When it is majority of people versus minority of people, most of results are mocks and sarcasm. That’s it. No more open debate as if there has been just one or the other answer. They don’t try to think more. They just get used to sticking to their rooted thought without critical and deeper thinking.
Thanks for your reply, Colleen :)

Oct 12 2012:
Yes Elizabeth, I remember the conversation about whether personality matters. Thanks Elizabeth, I also believe my old quotes are relevant to this issue and debate as well....actually, I believe the quote you pulled up is relevant to almost any situation:>)
Thank you Elizabeth....always a pleasure for me as well:>)

Oct 12 2012:
One thing that really bothers me is when people just undermine their conversation partner’s claim with lack of understanding of what he argues. Yup, some prejudices(gender, age, race, etc) may possibly be one of factors.

It’d almost sound like the broken record. And I guess that’s where the debate goes in vain, that is, “fruitless(from your quote)” ?

Oct 12 2012:
I agree Elizabeth, that any conversation is not productive when people are in a circular argument which seems to be "black and white", as you said in a previous comment. And yes, that is why I said this conversation could go on and on....fruitless....if people are not listening to. and considering new information. I am not surprised by your long replies my friend:>)

Oct 8 2012:
"Pro-life/pro-choice" is a false dichotomy. True dichotomies are "pro-life/pro-death" and "pro-choice/pro-force". Abortion debate is not about "pro-life/pro-death". It's about "pro-choice/pro-force".

We all need to develop our capacity for reasoning, ability to feel pain, and capacity to communicate to stop killing each other.

Oct 8 2012:
Politics is the domain of word twisters: form over substance. The same minds that thought up the term "pro-life" thought up the terms "family values" and "un-American" (or un-British, un-Australian, etc...), they are pathetic distractions created by those who have no logical arguments to fall back on.

Oct 8 2012:
I agree that "family values", "un-American", etc. are meaningless buzz-words. I disagree with stereotyping people and making broad emotional judgments. We are all pathetic and illogical in many ways :-).

Oct 9 2012:
If you read thread of replies on my post right below, I have commented on rights there. Pregnancy is all about the mother... and the fetus... (there is no pregnancy without a fetus either, is there?) But I agree, abortion issue is ALL about the mother. It must be her decision and her alone. The fetus does not make any decisions.

God or evolution, when a mother feels safe, calm, happy, secure, comfortable, supported, etc., she will always make the right decision. Fear, anger, pressure, anxiety, threats, despair, feeling abused, insecure, etc. is the problem. The solution to the problem is purely emotional, not logical, not political, not religious - a little kindness to each other, and we will do just fine :-).

Oct 9 2012:
Pregnant women do not control what happens to their bodies :-) They should be able control what is being done to their bodies.

It all comes down to love. When love is present, the question of rights does not even come up. All this stuff comes up when love is overshadowed by the other things I mentioned. It all comes down to the woman's emotional and physical well-being. I think, this is the only issue to focus on. The other issues don't really matter.

Oct 7 2012:
In the US, the fetal debate centers on when "life" begins. Typically this is called being. There are three major points of debate.

1. Conception
2. At heartbeat development
3. Point of viability

There are many others and different subcategories but those are the main ones.

The conception model looks at a fertilized egg and cellular division as the beginning of life. While still just a cluster of cells, it has the potential of becoming a human and is therefore defined by many as "life." But for me, cancer is a bunch of rapidly dividing human cells and nobody gets all bent out of shape when that is removed.

The fetal heart begins to beat around week 8 or 9. Those who feel there is an attachment between heart and soul typically feel that is when a bunch of cells crosses into being.

The point of viability is where the fetus has a chance of living separate from the mother. This has changed over the years as technology has advanced and we can keep a fetus alive outside the mother earlier and earlier. But the long term ramifications of the application of technology have yet to be fully realized.

But no one considers a fetus or an infant or even a young child a person. In the legal and philosophical realm, a person is typically considered to have agency, or the ability to make decisions. That is why Ms. Warner suggests those parameters. It sets up the foundation for her philosophical discussion. Each philosopher will do something similar when discussing person. It has changed over the centuries, for instance, women are now considered persons.

Oct 7 2012:
Good question. Perhaps yes. Theoretically all human cells have human DNA so what distinguishes the parallel? If cancer cells have the same DNA as fetal cells what is the difference? Both feed off the host and cannot survive without it. Both can kill the host. Both rely on the host for nutrition, respiration, excretion, growth and development. Both will derive what it needs from the host whether or not the host ingests it. Think about it.

Oct 7 2012:
@ Sterling Theoretically, if we could figure out the technology any human cell could potentially become a 'fully fledged human.' I do think that this will someday become a reality. If not in the US, it will develop in some other country that is not as conflicted about life.

Oct 7 2012:
In all honesty, I really don't know. Cancer is usually hit with chemicals or radiation or surgically removed. If left untreated it will kill the host. But I am not sure if it would develop into a self-sustaining organism if it did not kill the host. Only that it has the potential to.

Oct 7 2012:
At the risk of going awfully off-topic, I'll answer that question.
In a strict sense, animal cells are never self-sustaining (or primary producers or autotrophs). They need something else to make "food" for them. However, used in a looser sense, the HeLa cells that I mentioned earlier *are* self-sustaining. Given "food", they'll grow and reproduce indefinitely. The HeLa cancer cells are not unique in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortalised_cell_line.

So, the answer for Linda Taylor: yes, *some* cancers will form a self-sustaining organism.

And the answer for Sterling Spencer: no, it it awfully unlikely to ever form a full-fledged human. Cancer cells have several mutations that can't be simply reversed or turned off. So, even if technology ever progresses far enough to clone a person from just his dandruff, we'll never be able to clone a person from their cancer cells without making many modifications to the DNA first.

Oct 7 2012:
I had heard about this so thanks for the article. I heard about it when we were discussing ownership. For instance, who owns those cells? Has to do with informed consent to research. Another fine ethical discussion:)

Think about it. They could clone her at some point. So those cells could become a person some day. They better not kill any of them...

Oct 7 2012:
""At eight weeks, the intestines begin to form and teeth start growing under the gums. By the end of the "embryonic stage" ( this stage begins at week 4 during pregnancy), the embryo has developed joints and the beginning of the " irises ". Major organs have begun their development, as well as the CNS (central nervous system). This would be the end of the eighth week ( embryonic stage).""http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080503145054AAeMqu9

Seems to me the killing of these little people can only be justified by the need to save mum's life. We live in a strange world.

Oct 7 2012:
Its a strange world indeed. But considering the fact that some thinkers believe that a fetus is a human being(even if not a person) dont you think this is a strong-enough arguement against abortion?

Oct 7 2012:
Tell me about it. Fetus isn't valued high just because of this ridiculous law that it has no right to live and to be born if its mom decides to abandon it. It's a really serious problem we all should talk about intensely, but the fact that it's still unresolved (in a way that fetus can't be regarded as worthy of living) always troubles my mind. Btw, great question, Feyisayo.
We should respect women's rights, but as for this matter that shows so many lives are at stake, I can't dare to say that it's okay to get rid of fetus anyway its mom wants.
As Peter says, "Seems to me the killing of these little people can only be justified by the need to save mum's life", only particular cases like this should be justified, indeed.
By fundamentally respecting women's rights, how can we save fetus's life?
Are both of desires nonetheless contradictory?
So sad..

Oct 7 2012:
Fetuses do not have rights because they are NOT considered persons. They cannot make decisions. If you cannot make decisions, someone else has to make them for you. Children are not persons either which is why the courts can take over decision making for them if the parents cannot.

So what you are talking about is taking away a right of a woman who DOES have rights because she is a PERSON and grant rights to something that is not a person. By what stretch of the imagination is that ethically correct?

Oct 7 2012:
@ Spencer
The ability to make a decision develops over time. For instance, the law does not consider that a minor has the ability to make decisions so they are not allowed to sign a contract or sue someone without an 'agent.' This idea of an agent, or someone able to make a decision, and personhood goes back a long way. Varying philosophers and legal people have come to some consensus on what it takes to be a person with moral agency able to make decisions. Some criteria include the list by Ms. Warren above.

But what everyone agrees on is that decisions are based on the concepts of reason and agency. A fetus has neither of those.

Oct 7 2012:
Interesting point about infanticide. I would argue, that I believe in Mary Ann Warrens definition, but that still makes infanticide murder, because all of those things begin at very late stages in the womb. They are simple mechanisms, but they still exist in the third trimester, the brain is formed and it is making movements, trying to communicate, kicking for example.

Personally, I go for brain development, and the ability to feel pain, as the line at when abortion should be considered a cruel act. I think that happens around month 7, but i'm no expert.

To me something that is not experiencing the world, cannot be murdered. Especially in light of recent studies which have found that for most women, an abortion doesn't stop a life from coming into the world, it just delays it, until that life has a more stable parent which can provide for it. I think in a small study once they even found no statistical difference in the number of children women have in their lifetime, after an abortion, but I would have to find it and read it again to be sure.

Abortion should however, remain societally discouraged as a last resort. The pill is healthier for most women, condoms are ideal. There is often talk of liberals being "for" abortion, because a small minority are, they see nothing wrong with it, even 3 or 4... That's as unhealthy for a womans body as a drug addiction... but very few people think that behavior is acceptable, most simply think prison might not help. Morally gray, legally, acceptable, in my humble opinion. So, emotionally, it's kinda a person. Legally, it's a fetus.

Oct 7 2012:
I'm giving much thought to your view that "something that is not experiencing the world cannot be murdered".

What is your take on the view that abortion is the misuse of power by human beings over other human beings; that is, it is thought in some quarters that abortion is tantamount to denying a helpless being of a right to life and living.

Oct 8 2012:
To me that's where I say it's a morally gray. You are stopping a potential life... However, you will likely bring a different life into the world, under better circumstances, when you are older, and more secure. So I like to think of it as delaying a life, which may be wrong, but it's not murder... It's a difficult choice a teenage mother has to make, about when to bring a life into the world.

If she chooses to delay, the particular life form, which has already been conceived, will die, but hopefully a new life form will spring forth later, with a better chance at life. So I see it as a mistake, and a moral wrong, but not a cardinal sin, not murder. We all make mistakes.

Oct 7 2012:
David, a fetus is not an infant. It is called a fetus before it comes out of the mother. It can be called an infant after it comes out of the mother which is how the law defines it. Typically a baby is called a neonate for the first 28 days after birth and after that it is called an infant. To my knowledge, there is no medical procedure for infanticide.

Oct 8 2012:
Hey Linda. I agree with you here, I was merely responding to the question of infanticide.

On the other conversation, I cannot respond, because you responded too low. I assure you however, that my rant did not look as childish before John went on a deleting spree, erasing everything he said along the lines of "women are perfect, men are evil, and looking at the world any other way is insane".

Growing up, as a young boy, who's just supposed to tolerate insane, sexist, nonsense like that, is frustrating, so I went off. Feel free to correct me however. I was playing a bit of devils advocate. I have no intention of "growing up", to learn that I'm evil, and everyone I like is evil though, and I don't think that is the "fair" way to view the world.

Oct 30 2012:
@ Margo Kirkpatrick RE: "I don't see how a person . . ."The specific question before us is whether or not a fetus is a person in terms of the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled (legislated) that the answer is "No". In the USA you can deliberately terminate the gestation of a human being under almost any condition. Thus abortion is not a crime, it is not considered to be violence against another person. Folks who support and participate in abortions can correctly say they are not doing harm to a person. That is why some say they have the right to abort. They do not say they are taking the life of an innocent person. They say they are "ridding the mother's body of the product of conception". Millions of times since 1973 in America the rights of women have been trampled underfoot, unborn women that is.

Oct 31 2012:
I believe all women and men have inalienable rights. Those of us who are able can fight for our rights as we understand them. But the old, the infirm, the disenfranchised, and the unborn need someone to fight for them. I think we all have a share in the task of helping the helpless. Do you disagree Colleen?

Nov 4 2012:
Edward,
The UDHR states that everyone has a right to religion and their own beliefs. And in Roe v Wade it was concluded that any woman, for any reason may have an abortion.
my belief is that this is a good law because under the circumstances of rape no woman no matter the age should have to go through with having a baby after having sex without consent. We should not be able to control a woman's choice of having an abortion it is their choice to make not ours.

Oct 31 2012:
Edward,
You KNOW that I do not get distracted by your diversionary tactics.

The topic is:
"Is a Fetus a Person? The debate over whether abortion should be considered as murder often focuses on the question of whether the fetus is a person or not."

A) It is determined, by law, that a fetus is not a person.
B) Abortion is legal in the US.

What part of that do you not understand?

I assume you have never had to make the choice to carry a pregnancy to term, or have an abortion. If you did ever have to make that difficult choice for yourself, I would support whatever you chose...just as I support many women in the choices they make for themselves. Whatever YOUR religious beliefs are, it does NOT give you the right to control a woman's choice for herself.

Oct 31 2012:
The part I don't understand is your reluctance to give a simple, direct reply to a valid, related question. One last try and then I will hopefully begin another lengthy hiatus from your incessant nonsequiturs. Here goes: Do you disagree that unborn babies are unable to fight for their rights?If you choose to not answer that specific question please spare me any further diatribes and do not respond to me directly. Thank you Colleen!

Nobody considers an egg, or a spermatozoid a person, correct? and a fertilized egg of a few days has much more in common with either one of those than it has with a newborn.

So, if it were possible... putting religion aside for a moment, where does one draw the artificial line between a spermatozoid, or an egg, and a newborn? a few days? a few weeks? when certain characteristics appear? which characteristics? How does one factor in both the jurisdiction and the wellbeing of the mother? Does the quality of life that can be offered to the offspring play any role? or is it just a matter of ensuring babies are born and then passing on responsibility to someone else?

Oct 31 2012:
Good points Andres. I think the question is as much biology as it is religion, probably more. If we stick to biology and trace the full life cycle of a homo sapien from beginning to end we see that it begins when an egg is fertilized by a sperm and it ends when metabolism and respiration ceases. Independent gametes are not homo sapiens but zygotes are. To try and justify saying a zygote is not one of the phases of human life one must leave biology and find a rationale in law, ethics, philosophy, or elsewhere. If my spiritual beliefs were different I truly do not see how it would change my understanding of biology, which is the only proper science to provide the answer to Mr.Anjorin's question. Thank you, and be well sir.

Oct 31 2012:
Oh baloney. You can make an embryo in a dish and destroy it at will. Nobody is calling it helpless. People pick and choose and draw artificial lines. What happens when we can carry an embryo to term in a vat? It will happen some day you know. So all of a sudden embryos are helpless humans?

Actually, when you can grow an embryo in a vat, I would probably be OK with ending abortion. Women get to choose and the fetus gets to live. Just take the fetus out, throw it in a jar and walk away. Someone else can pay for it and raise it. Maybe the government? Oh but wait, the government gets its money from you and me. But I don't want to pay for it so you can. But then, who would own it?

At current estimates we would need about 50,000 vats a year. Someone could make a fortune. And in about 10 years we would have an additional 500,000 children to school, who would of course in another 10 years need some additional vats. Maybe some jobs so they could be taxed to support the vat program.

Oct 17 2012:
When we end the life of a living thing, we call it killing.
OR harvesting, picking, reaping and others I can't think of, that are less volatile terms.
When we intentionally end the life of a human being, we call it murder. Premeditated murder.

But, a fetus is not a person but only a human being (murder?) that hasn't really developed into the "being".
They are, but they are not being.

We need to really be educated, without hidden moral lies and motives, about life. But we really don't know the truth and many of the so-called experts are not trustworthy.

Just want to add, that though I am on the side of women in this regard (60/40), I don't understand the concept of slave-ownership of the fetus, baby, child.

Ultimately, we should all mind our own business, but since pregnancy takes two, so should abortion, for the ownership has to be between two.

Using rape is a lousy example. It is only a way of stopping the conversation. Unless, women believe, think or pretend that all coupling with a male is actually a form of rape. Do ladies think this? I know many who do. It is a very dangerous slope to slide around on.

Clearly, the Christian country known as America has virtually no qualms about killing millions of people, particularly babies and children. So, methinks from that alone, this isn't even a moral dilemma at all.

Oct 17 2012:
I agree Random, that "we need to really be educated, without hidden moral lies and motives about life".

Lest we misunderstand the meaning of rape:
"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as a person who is unconscious or incapacitated." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

If it is determined by law that a fetus is NOT a person, and if abortion is legal, it is reasonable to expect those in the community to respect those laws, and the rights of others, no matter what their personal beliefs and preferences are.

It is a "moral dilemma" for those who have certain beliefs, and I respect the beliefs of others. I do not agree with imposing one's beliefs onto others.